Oops, didn’t see the last line of your post, Quasi. Never mind.
Don’t you know how to push an agenda Varq? You have to jump multiple threads and make snide remarks. Its the push you asked for, he’s just delivering!
I’ll take the day off from the forums, I see nothing beneficial developing at this point. Please do keep up with the gun talk. I look forward to seeing this has progressed tomorrow :D.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’d like to see Varq comment on the SKS, especially the various modifications that can be done with that platform.
I own one (stock) and would like to possibly Bullpup kit it.
If he says everything he said about the AK pretty much applies to the SKS I would understand.[/quote]
SKS is to AK what M1 is to M14… sort of.
Sergei Simonov was no Mikhail Kalashnikov, and neither possessed the design genius of John Garand, which Kalashnikov himself once famously admitted.
That said, the SKS is a neat little carbine, for all intents and purposes a reasonably good “poor man’s AK”. It is not so robust as the Kalashnikov, but it is a good solid piece of Soviet engineering which, like the AK, is very good at what it does.
It is of course longer and heavier than the AK, but this does give it a slight edge in practical accuracy and downrange performance (higher velocity out of the longer barrel, much greater sight radius). It shares in common with the AK the drawback (or advantage, considering ammunition cost and availability) of its cartridge, the 7.62x39. Fine for 300 meters and closer, not quite as dependable beyond.
The biggest advantages of the SKS are very low cost, ease of maintenance, cheap ammunition and tons of aftermarket accessories.
It’s also a great carbine for the subjects of the Peoples Republic of California because, like the Garand, it has none of the attributes of the dreaded “assault weapon”: no removable magazine, no pistol grip, no flash suppressor. It does have a bayonet lug, but that’s fine because no removable magazine. Of course none of this bullshit applies to people lucky enough to live in the Great State of Montana, but nice to know for anyone still trapped in Califucktopia.
Having said all this, I must qualify it by saying that I have never owned one, so can’t really give a comprehensive reply about what accessories and upgrades i would want on “my” carbine, but the fiberglass pistol grip stocks and magazine extension kits seem like a good option.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I own one (stock) and would like to possibly Bullpup kit it.[/quote]
The bullpup stocks seem like a good option too, and then your carbine would be shorter than a standard AK. I’ve begun to take a close look at bullpups recently. I was put off by the looks of the AUG when it first came out, but have reconsidered the design and actually really like it now. The SA88 is a bit underwhelming by comparison, and both of them are 5.56, so my final thought on them tends to be a qualified “meh”. The new Kel-Tech 7.62 bullpup (above, next to FAL) looks enticing, but I’d be much happier with a bullpup version of (or conversion kit for) the G3, FAL or M14 that wasn’t ugly as a motherfucker.
Why, Steyr-Mannlicher? Why?
Why will you not make this rifle in 7.62 Nato?
If a 7.62 AUG was available, I would become Austrian just to be able to have one.
Speaking of Steyr-Mannlicher, although we’ve been talking pretty exclusively semi-automatic weapons here (or at least I have), there is one bolt-action I would recommend. This is the Steyr-Mannlicher Scout, a lightweight 7.62 rifle with a 19-inch barrel, just six and a half pounds and 39 inches long. Takes a five- or ten-round removable magazine, and has a receptacle in the stock for a backup magazine.
This was the love-child of a long collaboration between Jeff Cooper and Steyr, and is the incarnation of his ideal of what one should have if one could only have one rifle. The Scout is obviously better suited for hunting than for fighting, although it did see some service in Bosnia, and I suppose for an urban guerrilla sniper it would be just the thing.
The Colonel did once say that if he were to equip a private army, he would go with the G3, with the caveat that he would correct the trigger and bolt hold-open issues. However, if Steyr were to make an AUG in 7.62 that was as rugged and reliable as an HK, that I suppose would be my choice.
Ah, well. We takes what we can gets.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
…annoyance with nature
[/quote}
You might …
Edit: I have no idea why the quotes are screwed up here. They appear to be correctly done.[/quote]
Appearance can be deceiving. You typed } when you meant to type ]. 
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Don’t you know how to push an agenda Varq? You have to jump multiple threads and make snide remarks. Its the push you asked for, he’s just delivering!
I’ll take the day off from the forums, I see nothing beneficial developing at this point. Please do keep up with the gun talk. I look forward to seeing this has progressed tomorrow :D.[/quote]
Yeah, Quasi.
Check out the Wolf thread. I addressed this point there.
Push is like whisky. He might seem harsh when you first encounter him, but once you get to know him, you begin to appreciate his unique character.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Somewhat appropriate for this thread:
12 Weapons That Changed Everything
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/08/15/12-Weapons-That-Changed-Everything[/quote]
Interesting article. Highlights the fact that the history of military technology has been all about progressively getting farther away from your enemy, while still being able to kill him.
A couple of inaccuracies: the sarissa wasn’t a feature of the original Greek phalanx, that was a Macedonian innovation, and a decicive one: the Greek phalanx, perfected by the Spartans, was good enough to defend a city-state and consolidate a nation, but the Macedonian phalanx conquered empires.
Similarly, the tank all by itself was good enough to win battles, but the tank and dive-bomber combination, conceived by JFC Fuller and Liddell Hart, but perfected by Hitler, was the winning trick that conquered entire nations.
The Colt pistol was a fantastic invention, extremely important, but more important militarily than the repeating rifle? Hmmm. Not so sure. Also, I had a laugh over the author’s claim that the AK was somehow “more accurate” than the M-16. The Kalashnikov has plenty of advantages over the Armalite platform, but inherent accuracy ain’t one of them.
Not right now, but sometime I’d like to make a thread to discuss the impact of innovations on weaponry on the dilution of the warrior ethic. In every age, new weapons that increased the distance at which one could kill one’s enemy was greeted with disdain by the old-school warriors, who felt that the new technology was a coward’s way out. The Spartans disdained archers and slingers. The Romans had contempt for armored cavalry. The European knights despised the crossbow, and the Japanese were so appalled at the fact that an uneducated peasant with a matchlock could kill a noble samurai that Hideyoshi banned firearms altogether.
Today, is there any combat soldier or Marine who doesn’t feel at least a little contempt for artillery barrages, airstrikes and, especially drone strikes? Should a fat neckbeard geek in a trailer in New Mexico be able to sit at a computer controlling a drone that kills fifty people in Pakistan, at no more more risk to himself than burning his tongue on a hot-pocket, and get a “Distinguished Warfare” medal? Leonidas, Audie Murphy and Herbert Hanneken would all puke in disgust at such a thought.
The other thing that occurred to me reading this article was that the great weapons of history may be superseded and replaced by new inventions, but they never really truly become obsolete. In a world of laser-guided missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and thermonuclear bombs, the original military technique of bashing a guy’s head in with a rock and poking him in the guts with a pointy stick works just as well now as it did for the first guy on the planet who employed this new technology on his fellow man.
There’s something comforting about that. Traditions are important.
The first recorded use of weaponry. The high-tech assault bludgeon was the pinnacle of military technology for many centuries.
Interesting to consider that most of our conventional weapons are simply refinements of the rock and pointy stick. The aims are identical: crush the enemy’s body, or puncture his arteries and vital organs. Add to that the expedients of burning or asphyxiating him, and you have every weapon ever made.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Somewhat appropriate for this thread:
12 Weapons That Changed Everything
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/08/15/12-Weapons-That-Changed-Everything[/quote]
Interesting article. Highlights the fact that the history of military technology has been all about progressively getting farther away from your enemy, while still being able to kill him.
A couple of inaccuracies: the sarissa wasn’t a feature of the original Greek phalanx, that was a Macedonian innovation, and a decicive one: the Greek phalanx, perfected by the Spartans, was good enough to defend a city-state and consolidate a nation, but the Macedonian phalanx conquered empires.
Similarly, the tank all by itself was good enough to win battles, but the tank and dive-bomber combination, conceived by JFC Fuller and Liddell Hart, but perfected by Hitler, was the winning trick that conquered entire nations.
The Colt pistol was a fantastic invention, extremely important, but more important militarily than the repeating rifle? Hmmm. Not so sure. Also, I had a laugh over the author’s claim that the AK was somehow “more accurate” than the M-16. The Kalashnikov has plenty of advantages over the Armalite platform, but inherent accuracy ain’t one of them.
Not right now, but sometime I’d like to make a thread to discuss the impact of innovations on weaponry on the dilution of the warrior ethic. In every age, new weapons that increased the distance at which one could kill one’s enemy was greeted with disdain by the old-school warriors, who felt that the new technology was a coward’s way out. The Spartans disdained archers and slingers. The Romans had contempt for armored cavalry. The European knights despised the crossbow, and the Japanese were so appalled at the fact that an uneducated peasant with a matchlock could kill a noble samurai that Hideyoshi banned firearms altogether.
Today, is there any combat soldier or Marine who doesn’t feel at least a little contempt for artillery barrages, airstrikes and, especially drone strikes? Should a fat neckbeard geek in a trailer in New Mexico be able to sit at a computer controlling a drone that kills fifty people in Pakistan, at no more more risk to himself than burning his tongue on a hot-pocket, and get a “Distinguished Warfare” medal? Leonidas, Audie Murphy and Herbert Hanneken would all puke in disgust at such a thought.
The other thing that occurred to me reading this article was that the great weapons of history may be superseded and replaced by new inventions, but they never really truly become obsolete. In a world of laser-guided missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and thermonuclear bombs, the original military technique of bashing a guy’s head in with a rock and poking him in the guts with a pointy stick works just as well now as it did for the first guy on the planet who employed this new technology on his fellow man.
There’s something comforting about that. Traditions are important. [/quote]
This resentment of being a soldier and not getting to actually fight while at war was touched on some in the movie Jarheads. Ever seen it?
I haven’t. I’ve heard about it though. Sounds like an even more cynical Full Metal Jacket.
General Grant famously said “War is Hell” (to which General Patton rejoined, “yeah, and God help me, I love it so!”), but really, war is mostly Limbo punctuated with a little Hell every once in a while.